3G much faster than WiFi now?

Ever since I purchased the 3G iPhone my 3G performance is MUCH faster than my WiFi connection. My old iPhone was very fast on my WiFi connection but the new 3G iPhone is MUCH slower using the WiFi connection. It's so much slower that I have permanently turned WiFi OFF. My WiFi network is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the phone. I thought it would get better with the latest update but it hasn't. Anyone else experiencing this??

Here are the results from my speed tests.
3G TEST:
262 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
317 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
572 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
293 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
589 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
AVERAGE SPEED IS 406kbps
WiFi TEST:
1763kbps (initial latency probe is 35976ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
1543kbps (initial latency probe is 36095ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
2239kbps (initial latency probe is 441ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
CRASH (Had to restart Safari)
1780kbps (initial latency probe is 22810ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
1656kbps (initial latency probe is 29863ms, 28364ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
2084kbps (initial latency probe is 411ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
AVERAGE SPEED IS 1844kbps
The problem with my WiFi is the initial connection takes forever. Once it gets going it is much faster. Looks like I have massive turbo lag. Since the initial WiFi ping takes longer than the entire 10 pings of the 3G test the WiFi connection “appears” much slower. Not good.
Anyone have any idea how I can fix this? Should I try and return the phone?

Similar Messages

Why is my iMac 450/128 much, much faster than my Powerbook 333/512?

Hey boys and girls,
I'm sort of new to the Mac world, but I'm working hard to become clever.
So, here's the story. I have a Powerbook Bronze 333MHz with 512MB of RAM and the Toshiba 6GB drive it was born with and 10.3.9. I have a Bumbleberry (I think that's the "official" colour) iMac at work with a G3 at 450MHz and only 128MB of RAM also running 10.3.9.
The iMac runs much, much faster than the Powerbook, despite barely meeting the minimum RAM requirements of 10.3. What are some possible reasons for this? I understand that this ain't no speed machine, but the Powerbook is so slow that there is a second or two second typing delay in an Adium chat window for heaven's sake.
OK, so the iMac is technically faster, but I feel as though there is something wrong with the performance of the Powerbook, especially with all the RAM I've thrown at it (the Activity Monitor says that the PB has roughly 140MB of free RAM right now). I have a newer 40GB 5400 RPM drive that I'm tempted to install, to see if the 6GB drive is just old and tired (it whines a bit, so I'm sure it is to some degree) -- am I wasting my time?
Thanks for any help in advance.
Ugli
PB Bronze Mac OS X (10.3.9)

ugli:
Welcome to Apple Discussions.
You are well on the way to becoming clever. Really. Just by logging in and posting here you have started a process of learning that can go on until you are really clever.
There are a number of reasons your iMac seems faster that the Lombard. One is that it has a faster processor. Secondly, even with more RAM your Lombard has a small, slow HDD. I don't know how much free space there is on your HDD, but 6 GB fills up quite quickly these days. I am sure the larger (and faster) HDD will make a difference. I had maxxed out the RAM on my Pismo, but it was when I installed a larger, faster HDD that I noticed the difference. And, of course, when I upgraded the processor I noticed the biggest difference. Still not match for the newer faster machines, but then, I'm not as fast as I used to be either.
Good luck in your quest.
cornelius
PismoG4 550, 100GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM; Pismo 500 OS X (10.4.5) Mac OS X (10.4.5) Beige G3 OS 8.6

Sun Studio 12 is still much faster than the newest express 11/08

I gave the newest Express 11/08 a try on my laptop. I found that Studio 12 is still
much faster than the express version at least on my laptop. See the old messge below.
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5321607&tstart=15
I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.

I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.Thanks for noting :)
This has already been filed as a bug - http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6735472.
And as you can see it is even already fixed.
Unluckily it missed Express 11/08 integration time slot (by a mere week or so).
It is reasonable to expect it to be available at the next Express/whatever release happens next.
regards,
__Fedor.

If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?

If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?
I'm from germany, sorry for my english!

When you export your project, it is "compiled" into video format. Any player will play it at its frame rate.
Motion is a compositing application. It has to make many more times the calculations needed to animate everything and 90% of the time, it's just not possible for Motion to keep up with "real time". It's to be expected. Learning to live with that fact will make life a lot easier for you, I promise.
There are a few things you can do to help speed up Motion:
Reduce temporary play ranges to no more than about 5 seconds at a time. You can move the Play Range In and Out markers from section to section. Motion does all of its real time rendering in RAM. The longer the play range, to more it has to work managing that memory.
Remove Preview Icons from the Layers list ( View menu > Layers Columns > Preview will toggle the views)
When you play your animation, turn off on screen guides: (command - / will toggle onscreen guides)
In Motion 5, reducing the quality of playback from the Render menu does not make a lot of difference anymore, so you might as well keep the default settings of Dynamic, Full and Normal on. However, Motion Blur, Frame Blending, Field Rendering, as well as the lighting options will affect playback, sometimes by quite a lot. So if you have Lights, turning off Lighting, Shadows, and Reflections will get back a lot of real time playback speed (just remember to turn on all that you need before rendering, or these things will be left out of the export!)
HTH

Why is Chrome so much faster than Safari?

I'm an Apple and Safari lover, but love goes only so far. I have tried everything with Safari in Yosemite, but it's really in a sad state when it won't even open my Google account page, or my own website. Sadly, I have found so many pages that either load so slowly that I give up, or don't open at all in Safari, yet Chrome always works, and fast. In fact, Firefox and Opera, both of which I have never used regularly are much better than Safari right now.
Does anyone have a clue as to why Safari has turned into such a poor browser in Yosemite? But please don't suggest I go to safe mode. I only want a decent browser, which I would prefer was Safari and not Chrome, but I do not want to deconstruct or rebuild my Macbook Air OS installation.

Funny. I'm finding exactly the opposite to be true. I've used Chrome since it came out, and it used to be far superior to Safari. Lately I find it to be very buggy--lots of jittery, time consuming page loads and crashes. Frustrated, I imported all of my stuff to Safari where loading times, scrolling, and navigation are like butter. No crashes and no loading issues on my MB Pro. So far so good.
I do wonder if it has something to do with the "baggage" I developed on Chrome over the years. I kept things pretty tidy--purging history, cookies, etc-- but it still just kept getting worse.
I guess Firefox is an option, but one thing is certain: I will not be returning to IE ****.

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Calling a library function node much faster than labview code?

Hi, I wrote a labview routine to perform a multiple tau autocorrelation on a large array of integers. A multi tau autocorrelation is a way to reduce the computation time of the correlation but at the expense of resolution. You can taylor the multitau correlation to give you good resolution where you need it. For instance, I require good resolution near the middle (the peak) of the correlation, so I do a linear autocorrelation for the first 64 channels from the peak, then I skip every second channel for the next 32, then skip every 4th channel for 32 more, then skip every 8th for 32 channels... etc.
Originally, I wrote my own multitau calculation, but it took several hours to perform for just 1024 channels of the correlation of around 2million points of data. I need to actually do the the correlation on probably 2 billion or more points of data, which would take days. So then I tried using labview's AutoCorrelation.vi which calls a library function. It could do a linear autocorrelation with 4 million points in less than a minute. I figured that writing my code in C and calling it using a call library function node would be faster, but that much faster?
Finally, I wrote some code that extracts the correlation data points that I would've got from my multitau code from the linear correlation function that I get from the AutoCorrelation.vi. Clearly this is not optimal, since I spend time calculating all those channels of the correlation function just to throw them away in the end, but I need to do this because the final step of my procedure is to fit the correlation function to a theoretical one. With say 2million points, the fit would take too long. The interesting thing here is that simply extracting the 1024 point from the linear autocorrelation function takes a significant amount of time. Is labview really that slow?
So, my questions are... if I rewrite my multitau autocorrelation function in C and call it using a call library function node, will it run that much faster? Can I achieve the same efficiency if I use a formula node structure? Why does it take so long just to extract 1024 points from an array?
I've tried hiding indicators and this speeds things up a little bit, but not very much.
I'll attach my code if you're interested in taking a look. There is a switch on the front panel called 'MultiTau'... if in the off position, the code performs the linear autocorrelation with the AutoCorrelation.vi, if in the on position, it performs a multitau autocorrelation using the code I wrote. Thanks for any help.
Attachments:
MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi ‏627 KB

Hi,
The C routine that AutoCorrelation.vi is using is probably a higly optimised routine. If you write a routine in LabVIEW, it should be less then 15% slower. But you'd have to know all ins and outs of LabVIEW. How data is handled, when memory is allocated, etc. Also note that the AutoCorrelation.vi has years of engineering behind it, and probably multiple programmers.
It might even be possible that the c code uses an algorithmic improvement, like the Fast Fourier Transform improves speed on the Fourier Transform. I think the autocorrelation can be done using FFT, but that isn't my thing, so I'm not sure.
For a fair comparation, posting the code in this forum was a good idea. I'm sure together we can get it to 115% or less of the C variant. (15/115 is just a guess, btw)
I'm still using LV7.1 for client compatibility, so I'll look at the code later.
Regards,
Wiebe.
"dakeddie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Hi,  I wrote a labview routine to perform a multiple tau autocorrelation on a large array of integers.  A multi tau autocorrelation is a way to reduce the computation time of the correlation but at the expense of resolution.  You can taylor the multitau correlation to give you good resolution where you need it.  For instance, I require good resolution near the middle (the peak) of the correlation, so I do a linear autocorrelation for the first 64 channels from the peak, then I skip every second channel for the next 32, then skip every 4th channel for 32 more, then skip every 8th for 32 channels... etc. Originally, I wrote my own multitau calculation, but it took several hours to perform for just 1024 channels of the correlation of around 2million points of data.  I need to actually do the the correlation on probably 2 billion or more points of data, which would take days.  So then I tried using labview's AutoCorrelation.vi which calls a library function.  It could do a linear autocorrelation with 4 million points in less than a minute.  I figured that writing my code in C and calling it using a call library function node would be faster, but that much faster?Finally, I wrote some code that extracts the correlation data points that I would've got from my multitau code from the linear correlation function that I get from the AutoCorrelation.vi.  Clearly this is not optimal, since I spend time calculating all those channels of the correlation function just to throw them away in the end, but I need to do this because the final step of my procedure is to fit the correlation function to a theoretical one.  With say 2million points, the fit would take too long.  The interesting thing here is that simply extracting the 1024 point from the linear autocorrelation function takes a significant amount of time.  Is labview really that slow?So, my questions are...  if I rewrite my multitau autocorrelation function in C and call it using a call library function node, will it run that much faster?  Can I achieve the same efficiency if I use a formula node structure?  Why does it take so long just to extract 1024 points from an array?I've tried hiding indicators and this speeds things up a little bit, but not very much.I'll attach my code if you're interested in taking a look.  There is a switch on the front panel called 'MultiTau'... if in the off position, the code performs the linear autocorrelation with the AutoCorrelation.vi, if in the on position, it performs a multitau autocorrelation using the code I wrote.  Thanks for any help.
MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi:
http://forums.ni.com/attachments/ni/170/185730/1/MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi

Am I missing something? USB Ethernet appears to be much slower than wifi.

System = Macbook Air early 2010
OSX = Mavericks
Have been using wifi to backup via time machine to windows 7 SMB network share.
Expected to see much faster backup times when ethernet attached using the Apple USB Ethernet dongle but the backup times seem much slower. Am I missing something here? Anyone else with experience of ethernet versus wifi for intranet/local network data transfers?
Thanks,
Bennie

Csound1 - My tests have indicated you are correct. Had not done the match before acquring the dongle. Seems like a waste of money unless you don't have access to wifi.
Thanks

Ios 7 battery drain - using faster than charging now

Anyone else have issues getting a full charge on iPhone 4S after updating to ios 7.0?
It's draining noticable faster - battery drains faster than it charges now so that unless you turn off the screen you end up with less charge than when you docked it. Same goes for regular 30 pin cable to 1Amp wall charger without the dock.
I left mine over night on the iPhone dock and it still only reached 92%
Never had issues on ios 6.
Even with the screen dimmed back to 50% (like I had it set for ios 6),
Battery was at 45% before updated yesterday and even though it was docked and charging during update was at 36% after the update, and kept dropping the longer I had it connected.
Does anyone know for sure if ios 7 is using the A5 cpu differently? maybe running it faster or using more power than on ios 6?
Rebooted my iPhone 4S a few times after updating, nosame issue. Was able to use Safari but unable to download from itunes or app store. They asked or my password, but it said "could not connect to app store, please try again". perhaps due to so many users updating yesterday
Then after opening a few apps (ebay, amazon) battery meter jumped to 100%
I do have DND enabled for notice center. update retained that preference and my screen lock code.
I noticed that even though screen lock timeout was set for 2 mins, it was prompting for code immediately. Had to change to 5 mins, since the 2 minute to lock option has been removed in ios 7.
Thanks,
JJ

Anyone else have issues getting a full charge on iPhone 4S after updating to ios 7.0?
It's draining noticable faster - battery drains faster than it charges now so that unless you turn off the screen you end up with less charge than when you docked it. Same goes for regular 30 pin cable to 1Amp wall charger without the dock.
I left mine over night on the iPhone dock and it still only reached 92%
Never had issues on ios 6.
Even with the screen dimmed back to 50% (like I had it set for ios 6),
Battery was at 45% before updated yesterday and even though it was docked and charging during update was at 36% after the update, and kept dropping the longer I had it connected.
Does anyone know for sure if ios 7 is using the A5 cpu differently? maybe running it faster or using more power than on ios 6?
Rebooted my iPhone 4S a few times after updating, nosame issue. Was able to use Safari but unable to download from itunes or app store. They asked or my password, but it said "could not connect to app store, please try again". perhaps due to so many users updating yesterday
Then after opening a few apps (ebay, amazon) battery meter jumped to 100%
I do have DND enabled for notice center. update retained that preference and my screen lock code.
I noticed that even though screen lock timeout was set for 2 mins, it was prompting for code immediately. Had to change to 5 mins, since the 2 minute to lock option has been removed in ios 7.
Thanks,
JJ

Why is host so much faster that WiFi?

I'm using a Linksys WRT54G. I've got a Windows host computer running at 20 MB/sec. My WiFi connected iMac is running a 5 MB/sec.
Why so much slower? What to do about this?

Clearly I was wrong to think that the WRT54G transmits at 54 MB/sec. Call me ignorant, but they should call it the WRT5. The 54 is misleading.
54 mega BITS/second. NOT mega BYTES/second.
5 megabytes/second would be around 40 megabits/second.
So now we are talking about pears and grapefruit. Does your ISP provide 20 megabyte/second service or 20 megabit service (most likely megabit).
And what are you using to measure your performance? Is it reporting megabits/second or megabytes/second.
Are you using something like:
<http://www.dslreports.com/stest>
<http://www.ookla.com/>
Most wireless communication systems get effective transfer rates of about 1/2 the advertised speeds. So if you get 25 megabits/second from an 802.11g base station, you are doing good. Some of the overhead is signaling protocol (hello, are you there, hi, did you get that, yea I got it, say again I missed that, wait a sec I'm talking to someone else, etc...). Some of the overhead is in the encryption of your messages so that your neighbors can not see what you are saying (this also affects the performance of many WiFi base stations as they do not have the fastest CPUs in them). Some of the performance loss is because of things like interference robustness, and multi-cast rate used by the WiFi base station. And if your neighbors are using their own WiFi base stations on the same or nearby channels, they will interfere with your ability to get maximum throughput.
As for finding out about your neighbors. If you live in a dense neighborhood (like an appartment complex, or housing where you can reach out and touch your neighor's house), then you most likely do have interfering neighbors. Use a utility such as AP Grapher, iStumbler, KISMac, Airport Radar to see what channel you are using and what channels your neighbors are using, and their relative signal strengths. Channels 1, 6, and 11 are the only 3 channels that do not overlap, as each channels actually uses 5 channels worth of bandwidth, and channel 6 is the most commonly used default channel. Only choose a different channel if 1, 6, and 11 have strong signals on them already, then pick the weakest signal strength channel between the weakest 1, 6, 11 users. Or switch to 802.11n which has more channels to play with.
How you figure out the multi-cast and interference robustness setting of your WRT54G is between you and the owner's manual or someone else that owns a WRT54G. I own an Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n base station.
If you find that your neighborhood has too many 802.11g WiFi base stations, then you might consider switching over to 802.11n *IF AND ONLY IF* all the devices you what maximum performace from are 802.11n capable. Keep the WRT54G if you have devices that can not switch to 802.11n (like an iPhone or iPod Touch, wireless printer, or older Mac or PC, etc....)

3.1.3 is much faster than 4.0 why?

I have conducted several speed tests. Its very disappointing. The only time 4.0 is faster is when multitasking and when the Apps are already open and eating battery. Why is 4.0 firmware soooo much slower?

kesajen wrote:
Does anyone know how to go back to 3.1.3? I have 16GB 3GS, running iOS4, and my phone runs VERY slow!! It's so frustrating. I don't really care about multi tasking, or any other goodie that came with 4. I want to go back to the old OS.
Any help out there?
I know how but can't say

Writing Speed Much Faster than Transcoding Speed

Hello,
I'm creating an image for future DVD burning and it is taking quite a while for my 11 minute film to go through this process. (it's been over 30 minutes so far, and as you can see from the screen shot below, I've got a ways to go!!)
I've noticed that the "transcoding" seems to be going lot slower than the "writing", per the screen shot below.
Is this typical?
Thanks! Matt

Thanks Stan, pretty nice mac pro transcoding from h.264... it looks like i did not have all my little ducks in a perfect row in my original source file.... testing that hypothesis now, it think that is the likely culprit.
thanks for helping!
Matt

3G faster than WiFi

hey everyone im very confused at the moment.
when i go on wifi in my house or anywhere for that matter and view youtube or other videos from other websites it is super slow but when i use 3g even 10 minute videos load in just seconds..
shouldnt wifi be alot faster?loading a 3-5 minute video on youtube using wifi can take minutes..
i have the "WiFinder" application and it says my network strength is 25?? but i have full WiFi bars..
i read somewhere that watching videos through 3G is quick because it downloads them at a lesser quality.
can someone help me configure my Wifi or give me an answer as to why viewing videos is faster through 3G then Wifi
thanks

hi there
I ain't no expert but there's something with ur network config. even if u don't notice a problem when using it with ur computer. maybe reset ur modem.

After updating to iOs 6.0.2 my iPad mini battery seems to drain much faster than before :(

I updated my iPad mini to iOs 6.0.2 a couple of weeks back and I am suffering from battery drain issues.
Although apple mentioned there, it is supposed to fix wifi issues, I never had any issue with wifi.
But a black line was appearing when playing youtube videos in safari or chrome, which is fixed in this update.
But my battery life of the iPad mini is considerably decreased.
Is apple going to provide another update, which ll fix the battery drain issue?

I am having the same issue. Hopefully they will have a fix soon.

SQL Server UPDATE much faster than Oracle -- why??

The following MS-SQL Server (2000) UPDATE takes 10 seconds, while the same Oracle 10.2.0.1 UPDATE takes over 15 minutes. The data is exactly the same (data set of 97,000 rows) and the cpu/disk/memory configs are similar for both databases. The Oracle tables have indexes and statistics gathered. The Oracle Explain Plan shows that indexes are being used for the SELECT table joins, but not for the UPDATE table.
Any ideas?
MS-SQL UPDATE:
update lib_cust_summary
set rev_2003 =
SELECT
sum(ohd.PRICE_EXTENSION)
FROM
oehist_summary ohs
,customers c
,oehist_detail ohd
,lib_cust_summary lcs
WHERE c.cust_nbr     = lcs.cust_nbr
and c.cust_nbr = ohs.cust_nbr
and ohs.INVOICE_NBR = ohd.INVOICE_NBR
and c.cust_nbr = lcs2.cust_nbr
and ohs.CUST_NBR NOT LIKE 'XFER%'
and     ohd.prod_grp not in ('AV','FE')
AND ohs.INVOICE_DATE between {ts '2003-01-01 00:00:00'} and {ts '2003-12-31 00:00:00'}
group by c.cust_nbr
from lib_cust_summary lcs2;
Oracle UPDATE
update lib_cust_summary lcs /*+ index(lcs lib_cust_summary_pk) */
set rev_2003 =
SELECT /*+ index(lcs lib_cust_summary_pk) */
sum(ohd.PRICE_EXTENSION)
FROM
oehist_summary ohs
,customers c
,oehist_detail ohd
WHERE c.cust_nbr = lcs.cust_nbr
and c.cust_nbr = ohs.cust_nbr
and ohs.INVOICE_NBR = ohd.INVOICE_NBR
and ohs.CUST_NBR NOT LIKE 'XFER%'
and     ohd.prod_grp not in ('AV','FE')
AND ohs.INVOICE_DATE between '01-JAN-2003' and '31-DEC-2003'
group by c.cust_nbr
)

update lib_cust_summary lcs /*+ index(lcs
s lib_cust_summary_pk) */
set rev_2003 =Why are you forcing the optimizer to read a full table by using an index?
SELECT /*+ index(lcs lib_cust_summary_pk) */What happens if you remove this hint also?
sum(ohd.PRICE_EXTENSION)
FROM
oehist_summary ohs
,customers c
,oehist_detail ohd
WHERE c.cust_nbr = lcs.cust_nbr
and c.cust_nbr = ohs.cust_nbr
and ohs.INVOICE_NBR = ohd.INVOICE_NBR
and ohs.CUST_NBR NOT LIKE 'XFER%'
and     ohd.prod_grp not in ('AV','FE')
AND ohs.INVOICE_DATE between '01-JAN-2003' and
d '31-DEC-2003'You should not compare dates to strings
AND ohs.INVOICE_DATE between to_date('01-JAN-2003','DD-MON-YYYY') and
to_date('31-DEC-2003','DD-MON-YYY')What are the plans now and after the changes?

3G much faster than WiFi now?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for